Really? You don't consider the fact that the Galaxy S has three buttons at the bottom rather than one to be a significant difference?

If they were physical buttons, of course, but the fact that they are smooth touch buttons means that they appear as decoration, kind of like the logo. Why, if Samsung thought that 3 buttons were necessary didn't they add three identical ones? Why not 3 physical buttons, or 3 touch buttons? I mean honestly, if you were designing a phone, and you thought you needed 3 buttons, would you really choose to make them different? You can construct all sorts of plausible arguments to explain this, but in the context that everything else looks so much like the iPhone, it's difficult to come to any other conclusion that it's a blatant copy.

Lots of people have brought up all sorts of justifications as to why it isn't a copy, but they relate to details that are effectively grasping at straws. One person even mentioned the logo FFS!

People's stubbornness to accept that they have ripped off so many of the Apple's design features (look at the tablet vs the iPad - the only evident different is the proportions) is really unhelpful. What do people get out of denying some of the most obvious things?

I'm not anti-Samsung, as I have been careful to stress, but ignoring basic IP theft is just wrong, and it sets a dangerous precedent. It means that there is no protection for a company who spends a lot of time and money developing a product, from someone stealing their ideas. The issue is clouded for a lot of people by the fact that it is Apple involved, the richest company in the world.

If it was the Nest thermostat that had been ripped off by a large Chinese or Korean company, I suspect the vast majority of people (particularly in the US) would be justifiable incensed. A small, innovative US company producing a truly new and ground breaking product effectively having its lunch stolen by an unscrupulous foreign competitor. They would be right there cheering for the little guy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

While I agree with you that many cues were taken from the iPhone 3G it is ludicrous to suggest that they 'copied it in its entirety'.

By this I mean that every significant feature was copied, proportions, appearance, operation, interface; together with some insignificant ones like the charger and packaging. Of course Samsung had to do something to differentiate the product. The shape of the centre button, the visible logo and the 'kick' on the back of the case are the most obvious features.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

If you were to follow my posts for the last couple of years you will see that I have been persuaded that the Galaxy S does infringe in certain areas on the design patent

Well perhaps that's expecting a little much from someone who ono joined the forum a week or so ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

- I was originally a staunch defender - however on one aspect my opinion has not changed: if you have both an iPhone 3G and a Galaxy S side by side it is impossible to mistake one for the other.

There are lots of things here. To start with, you know what you are looking at, and you know which phone is which, and the issue is in technology terms, ancient history. If you rewind to when the iPhone was released, not everyone knew about it, it had much lower market penetration, and familiarity levels were much lower. Samsung for the most part made ordinary phones.

If you had heard about the iPhone and went to a shop and saw this, you might well end up buying a different phone to one you intended. That is what Apple have claimed. Also, look at this. If you look at it quickly, you might well think you are looking at an Apple device.

You could also say that if you have to place two devices side by side to tell the difference, that's tantamount to saying that they are so similar that you have to do this.

As the court case has proved, you don't have to copy every single detail in every way such that something is indistinguishable, for it to be a copy.

The US court has judged that the one device clearly breaches the law in relation to IP theft, to the extent that it levied a huge fine. I agree with the points raised regarding patenting visual design, but regardless of whether the law is right, the court judgement was absolutely right. We've had many posts in effect arguing that they were wrong and it wasn't a copy. My posts have been to try to persuade the deniers exactly how and why they are wrong and that stealing ideas or designs is the same as stealing physical objects.

Fundamentally there are a *lot* of fundamental similarities which Samsung could easily have changed to differentiate their product, the same way as all the other Android phones have done (HTC were making elegant phones long before Apple), yet they didn't, and there are too many to plausibly deny the copying accusation.

Come on, be fair - basic design, shape, proportions, interface, icons, charger, packaging. They even ripped off the OSX iTunes icon, for their music player icon.

This is something that Apple got wrong in their court case. They claim Samsung copied the iPhone music icon, which is silly. They didn't - they copied the OS X iTunes icon instead!